Brawl - More balanced than Melee? Lie or truth?

[Pink Reaper]

Balance ONLY matters for the top tiers, because no one ever plays low tier characters ever. EVER.

 

[RushHour1049]

Everyone down to Link stood a pretty good chance of winning. Everyone down to Mid stood about an equal chance of winning tournaments save for some bad matchups here and there. The fact that people spammed the Top Tiers does not make the game itself imbalanced.

Where exactly are you getting these figures? Now I'm not disagreeing with you, and you do seem to know what you are talking about, but some hard evidence would be nice.

 

[Kikuichimonji]

Balance ONLY matters for the top tiers, because no one ever plays low tier characters ever. EVER.

Aniki played a low tier character in Melee (Link). He did pretty freaking well. And you're underestimating Rock-Paper-Scissors elements. Sometimes low-tier characters in games dominate a certain high-tier character. Which would admittedly lower the tier of said character, but tiers are constantly in flux anyway. (Note: Link was not a counter to top tier characters, I know. The example is for the first part.)

Yeah, I'd like to debate whether people with posts counts in single digits should be putting out opinions on semi-important issues like that of potential tier lists.

Voicing bad opinions is the best way to get them corrected. And who's to say people who've been here longer know better? I've seen people with large post counts say stupid things, and I've seen people with low post counts contribute well.

Besides, having a high post count does not even necessarily mean you're familiar with the scene. I lurked for about a year before I signed up. I may say stupid things, but I like to think I'm getting better. And not every tournament player has an account on SmashBoards. Even among those that do, some don't post much. Judging by post count is moronic and is an example of the strawman fallacy.

 

[Mr.C]

Where exactly are you getting these figures? Now I'm not disagreeing with you, and you do seem to know what you are talking about, but some hard evidence would be nice.

Germ, Aniki, Hugs, Cort, Mango....etc etc I could go on but it would be pointless, but almost all of the characters in Melee had a chance at winning major tournaments. Like I said earlier the main reason we didn't see Link's (using him as an example) winning tournaments is because the people who were actually good enough to WIN chose characters that gave them a greater chance at pulling off the victory. As well did many others and that why tournaments were spammed with Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheiks and Peachs.

I don't understand why people are saying its to early? lol. I guessed the top spots for the Melee tier list 100% perfect. Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth, Peach and this was in the early stages of the game when the tier lists were on Sheiks nuts. About a week into playing Brawl almost everyone already knew the top characters were MK, ROB, Snake, Marth. How can you say its to early to tell which characters are better when its blatantly obvious, even tournament placings are proving this.

Besides, having a high post count does not even necessarily mean you're familiar with the scene. I lurked for about a year before I signed up. I may say stupid things, but I like to think I'm getting better. And not every tournament player has an account on SmashBoards. Even among those that do, some don't post much. Judging by post count is moronic and is an example of the strawman fallacy.

You're right post count should have nothing to do with anything lol. The problem is when noobs come up in topics talking about **** they don't understand.

 

[Banee]

Ugh. So many people are entirely misconstruing what i'm talking about.

For clarity, I am NOT talking about low-tier characters. I am also not talking about any specifics in Brawl or Melee. All examples I used were hypothetical. I'm talking about a concept that the number of un-viable characters (DO NOT read this as low tier) does not factor into a games balance.

I'll define viable in that a viable character is one who has some impact on the environment. That means a character with a good matchup against high tier characters is viable, because it can impact the environment. Conversely, an un-viable character is one who has so few good matchups or is just overall weak enough that they have virtually no chance against equally skilled opponents.

 

[orintemple]

I'll define viable in that a viable character is one who has some impact on the environment. That means a character with a good matchup against high tier characters is viable, because it can impact the environment. Conversely, an un-viable character is one who has so few good matchups or is just overall weak enough that they have virtually no chance against equally skilled opponents.

Coughfalconcough

There are plenty of characters in Brawl who have few if any good matchups. Of course the same was in Melee, except that because of the lowering of overall skill in players in Brawl(due to the skill gap between top players and lower being decreased, which is due to the game being overall easier and less deep) makes character matchups ever MORE important than they were.

Since 2 people are now likely to be closer in skill, the character you are playing is that much more important, making less characters good, in turn making Brawl actually less balanced than Melee. Sure some random low tier might be the counterpick to ONE high tier, but that is not enough to make them overall competitively viable, unless it is them vs ALL of the same character(the one they are good against).

 

[RushHour1049]

Germ, Aniki, Hugs, Cort, Mango....etc etc I could go on but it would be pointless, but almost all of the characters in Melee had a chance at winning major tournaments. Like I said earlier the main reason we didn't see Link's (using him as an example) winning tournaments is because the people who were actually good enough to WIN chose characters that gave them a greater chance at pulling off the victory. As well did many others and that why tournaments were spammed with Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheiks and Peachs.

That's not quite what I was hoping for. I know that the top tier in melee won because they were so many of them. I just thought it would good for someone to post the hard evidence showing that the same is not happening in brawl (as in players are choosing characters much more equally now). You know, just to make the non-tourney goers understand, and that would lessen some arguments in this thread.

 

[Corigames]

Voicing bad opinions is the best way to get them corrected.

It is, but when they tell other new people what is truth and was is not, then it confuses them. they hardly know anything, they are new. I don't expect someone who joined up last month or last year to know as much as me or someone who's been here even longer. I do have a problem when they don't know what they are talking about, tell other people it is fact, and say veterans are wrong.

And who's to say people who've been here longer know better? I've seen people with large post counts say stupid things, and I've seen people with low post counts contribute well.

I do.

You can say things in a positive way and still be wrong. You can have fun on the side and still be a knowledgeable poster. If your account says you joined this month and you have the knowledge and skill to beat someone with a 2004 join date, I know that has to be an alternate account or the other person hasn't been to the boards in a year or two.

Besides, having a high post count does not even necessarily mean you're familiar with the scene. I lurked for about a year before I signed up. I may say stupid things, but I like to think I'm getting better. And not every tournament player has an account on SmashBoards. Even among those that do, some don't post much. Judging by post count is moronic and is an example of the strawman fallacy.

No, judging by post count tells you how active they are on the boards. If someone's first post is their tier list for the game, do you really expect it to be that good? I wouldn't, it's their first post. And even if you don't say a lot of meaningful things with your 1k + posts, you are at least reading and having conversations with a lot of people. You are conversing over the game and learning from it. If you have a lot of posts, you have said a lot of things. You have read a lot of posts. You are learning.

No, not every tourny player has an account. How many that don't have an account are good though?

...

 

[Banee]

No, judging by post count tells you how active they are on the boards. If someone's first post is their tier list for the game, do you really expect it to be that good? I wouldn't, it's their first post. And even if you don't say a lot of meaningful things with your 1k + posts, you are at least reading and having conversations with a lot of people. You are conversing over the game and learning from it. If you have a lot of posts, you have said a lot of things. You have read a lot of posts. You are learning.

No, not every tourny player has an account. How many that don't have an account are good though?

...

So let me get this straight, you almost purely judge the validity of a point on the seniority of someone on this board over what their actually saying? Because obviously a successful player must have an account on this board and post regularly? Even moreso, to know anything of game balance you must have a long standing and active account on smashboards, otherwise you know absolutely nothing, about as much as a newborn baby at best, anyway?

I cant even begin to explain how much of a logical fallacy this is. It blows my mind that someone would have such an idea.

Games were designed long before smashboards existed (centuries, in fact). I would say the people who designed said games know far far more about game design than any long standing member of smash boards.

Before I get flamed any more, I want to point out, for the 3rd time, that I never commented specifically on melee or brawls balance in anyway. I was speaking of a very general game balance concept.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Aniki played a low tier character in Melee (Link). He did pretty freaking well. And you're underestimating Rock-Paper-Scissors elements. Sometimes low-tier characters in games dominate a certain high-tier character. Which would admittedly lower the tier of said character, but tiers are constantly in flux anyway. (Note: Link was not a counter to top tier characters, I know. The example is for the first part.)

Voicing bad opinions is the best way to get them corrected. And who's to say people who've been here longer know better? I've seen people with large post counts say stupid things, and I've seen people with low post counts contribute well.

Besides, having a high post count does not even necessarily mean you're familiar with the scene. I lurked for about a year before I signed up. I may say stupid things, but I like to think I'm getting better. And not every tournament player has an account on SmashBoards. Even among those that do, some don't post much. Judging by post count is moronic and is an example of the strawman fallacy.

No one ever gets my joke >_>

Also, people with intelligent things to say are usually heard and recognized. They don't have to be pro's to know what they're talking about. And judging by post count is NOT moronic. Saying that a large post count automatically equates to intelligence is ********(because, you know, the brawl boards allow you to jump by hundreds of posts a day) but its rare that you find someone with 3 posts and a join date of last month who knows what they're talking about. If you do, pay real close attention to the name, its probably someone on a side account thats really easy to notice (IHaveSpaceBalls with a Moustache, NOTsliq)

Also, while its entirely possible that you did lurk for a year before signing up, its entirely impossible to prove it and unless you can back it up with actual knowledge, no one will ever believe you.

 

[gantrain05]

ok well i've been playin brawl for a few months now, and i main mostly lucas/bowser/peach and im pretty decent at the game, i haven't noticed any broken characters, but i have noticed quite a few very good ones, ie: metaknight in the hands of a good player is probably the most annoying thing you can fight, but fight him with a good lucas and you give him a run for his money, and even though they took out the AT's that were in melee, and i know gimpyfish is probably pretty pissed about bowser, but i think up to now its been more even, its very possible to beat marths or mk's with even a bowser or jiggs now, but in melee bowser vs shiek is almost 100% gonna go to the shiek if they know how to use her. so my opinion is yes, its more balanced than melee imo.

 

[Corigames]

So let me get this straight, you almost purely judge the validity of a point on the seniority of someone on this board over what their actually saying?

Did I say that you assuming jerk off? No. I said that new people aren't as smart as other people, generally. I still read their points, I just don't expect much. Reading is fun.

Because obviously a successful player must have an account on this board and post regularly? Even moreso, to know anything of game balance you must have a long standing and active account on smashboards, otherwise you know absolutely nothing, about as much as a newborn baby at best, anyway?

Wow, I hope you get a **** in your mouth for ever word you put in mine. No, you can be a pro without having an account. How many of those exist though? A mere handful, and almost no one notable. If you want to get better, it is generally accepted that you join these boards. If you can't come to grips with that, then you can annex your account here and go on without. You can go back to the gamefaq boards and have fun with the "post your favorite character using only your face" threads.

I cant even begin to explain how much of a logical fallacy this is. It blows my mind that someone would have such an idea.

It blows my mind to think that someone thinks a new person should know as much as an old person. I hope you skip college and take up a professional job that someone spent 4 years getting a degree on and prove me wrong. If you honestly think that you are better than most people here who didn't join since Sep. '07, then YOU have logical fallacies. Grow up and learn that you don't know everything, and neither does anyone else.

Games were designed long before smashboards existed (centuries, in fact). I would say the people who designed said games know far far more about game design than any long standing member of smash boards.

What the **** does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that because there wasn't a internet forum for everything that people were bad? Well guess what ****tard, people still CAME TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THINGS. What is smashboards but that? The internet allows us to come together, even when we are countries apart. If you think people don't better themselves by talking with their peers or masters, then you need to go back to being the best out of your firends and stay away from the people trying to get better.

BTW, I'm going to school to be a game designer. I know more about it than you do. Shut up.

When will n00bs learn that they are n00bs and that their early time here is suppose to be about sitting back and learning. LAERN. You aren't going to teach on a subject you don't know. And, even if you did, you should at least familiarize yourself with the stuff you are trying to teach. I know that teach-back method of learning is one of the best, but you have to do research to even attempt it. I bet most of you can't even do that on paper, let alone in a strange media such as a video game.

You are not good. Deal with it. You are ignorant. Deal with it. If anyone expects you to be a pro in your first month, then they are ignorant. You are new, get better.

 

[Banee]

You completely dodged all of my points and attacked me with insults. You didnt address a single thing I brought up and went on a tangent about something entirely different.

If I misunderstood your points and you werent talking about what I think you were talking about i'm sorry. But this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, in that you made a number of assumption. Namely, assuming you know more of game design than me. Trust me, your a student. You dont.

You should try to be more muture, civil, and clear about your points. But I cant argue with a brick wall so I wont try, which I dont even think were talking about the same thing anyway so its largely irrelevent.

Edit: I'm not sure if your tangent about sitting back and learning was directed at me or not. If it was, again your assuming because I wasnt part of these boards I have no idea about smash or game balance. See my post just before this. If it wasnt, ignore this.

 

[Kikuichimonji]

ok well i've been playin brawl for a few months now, and i main mostly lucas/bowser/peach and im pretty decent at the game, i haven't noticed any broken characters, but i have noticed quite a few very good ones, ie: metaknight in the hands of a good player is probably the most annoying thing you can fight, but fight him with a good lucas and you give him a run for his money, and even though they took out the AT's that were in melee, and i know gimpyfish is probably pretty pissed about bowser, but i think up to now its been more even, its very possible to beat marths or mk's with even a bowser or jiggs now, but in melee bowser vs shiek is almost 100% gonna go to the shiek if they know how to use her. so my opinion is yes, its more balanced than melee imo.

This entire paragraph is a run-on sentence. I refuse to read it until it is turned into legible English. Just so you know.

No one ever gets my joke >_>

Geez. I swear I understand sarcasm. Really. I just have extremely low expectations of people, heh.

I don't really disagree with any of the responses to my post. Obviously people with a history of contributing intelligently should have their opinions given more weight. I just thought that "You have a low post count -> your opinion is automatically wrong" is kinda silly. It's a good explanation for stupidity, but not 100% useful as an indicator. Obviously the best indicator of skill is actual proven skill at the game, such as at a tournament.

 

[Corigames]

I countered your points, but I also called you the prick that you so rightfully deserved to be called. I insulted you while also getting the point across. It can be done, it has been done, and I did it.

I don't want to try to be more "mature or civil," that's not how I do things. I am a brick wall. I"m not going to change my mind by someone talking to me. Break me down with hard facts, that'll teach me.

Don't think that because you tried to insult me without harsh language that you didn't also. I guess that makes you "more mature," but then what happens when you find out that you didn't fully look into what I was saying? I was mature and made sure I understood what the conversation was.

If you are honestly sorry, I forgive you then.

 

[Banee]

I am sorry if I misunderstood your point.

And you didnt address my points, but I think thats because we confused one another. My point was that simply seniority on this message board has pretty much nothing to do with knowledge of game balance. I still stand by that. But I dont believe thats what you were talking about so it really doesnt matter.

As for insulting me, you can continue to do that all you want i'll continue to call you the child you are for resorting to that. Ultimately, though, it has no bearing on either of our points.

 

[nitnit]

The gaps between the tiers feels greater and the chasm between The God Ones and The Bad Ones is much bigger this time around.

This is where your post becomes invalid. Tiers haven't been established yet. You also say in some of your other posts that Marth is the best character, when so far Metaknight and Snake are doing the best in tournaments.

Recently it seems that the popularity/predicted ranking of Ice Climbers, Game and Watch, and ROB has risen significantly, but who are on what tier level changes frequently. Maybe in a few months when our early, solid, tiers are established your argument of "tier chasms" will be true.

We can't even truly argue about game balance of tiers until real advanced techniques and fighting styles are made (we have threads of "AT DISCOVERY HERE!!!" when things like wavedashing weren't found until a couple years into hardcore playing of melee)


Also, you state in your post that you want to see opinions of people who are well known or tournament winners. While this is something that is very easy for someone in a high position like yourself to say, it should go without saying that a well thought out and logical post is better than a simple opinion regardless of who it's coming from.

Now, for a completely biased, and possibly incorrect opinion of my own - don't you find it a bit more believeable for brawl Ganondorf (who has so far been considered one of the worst characters in the game) to beat a brawl Marth (who you claim is the best character), than for, say, Melee Mewtwo to beat Melee Fox? I do at least, but even that opinion doesn't reflect the true nature of the game since metagames for marth and mewtwo have not been established.

 

[Corigames]

...it should go without saying that a well thought out and logical post is better than a simple opinion regardless of who it's coming from.

Now, for a completely biased, and possibly incorrect opinion of my own...

I think you just proved what he was saying.

 

[nitnit]

My post was written in 2 parts. The first part was a completely logical explanation to why his argument about tiers was invalid, and his demand to see posts from well known people was silly. The second was an opinionated argument, which I preface by saying is most likely incorrect since it is an opinion. Sorry if you didn't understand that.

 

[Corigames]

I guess I don't.

Don't belittle me because you are confused on if you are serious or not though.

Second, why is wanting a professional opinion bad? I've seen plumbers working and have played Mario, but would you want me working on that flood in your basement? No. You want a pro, just like him. That's not silly. What silly is saying that everyone is has just as valid as an opinion as everyone else. No.

 

[nitnit]

There was no intention to belittle you.

I was simply giving a logical retort to Yuna's opinion, and because he asked for it, then gave my own logic-less opinion. This is why I preface said opinion with what I said. I do take my opinion seriously, but I also accept that without more statistical information, like more tournament placings, and opinion holds little weight.

Personally, I have no problem with the opinions of those who win large tournaments, though I would rather here their opinions than that of someone who has a lot of posts on a forum. Either way, having something logical to back up an opinion makes it stronger, which was my point.

Theoretical Example: If in a Melee tournament, a very skilled player won with mario and said "Mario is top tier" because he won a tournament skillfully with mario, this would not be necessarily correct. However, if a person who is not well known were to bring up statistical data showing how Fox places higher, and the game mechanics that give fox greater potential, their statement would be better.

Yuna asked for both logic and opinion, so I complied.

 

[Yuna]

Where exactly are you getting these figures? Now I'm not disagreeing with you, and you do seem to know what you are talking about, but some hard evidence would be nice.

The game itself. Ask anyone with insight into Melee's metagame.

Link, for instance, had good matchups against Fox, Marth and Peach (at least) IIRC.

Ugh. So many people are entirely misconstruing what i'm talking about.

No we're not.

For clarity, I am NOT talking about low-tier characters. I am also not talking about any specifics in Brawl or Melee. All examples I used were hypothetical. I'm talking about a concept that the number of un-viable characters (DO NOT read this as low tier) does not factor into a games balance.

We understand quite well what you're trying to say.

What we're saying is: "Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!" (Dr. Zoidberg, Futurama)

I'll define viable in that a viable character is one who has some impact on the environment. That means a character with a good matchup against high tier characters is viable, because it can impact the environment. Conversely, an un-viable character is one who has so few good matchups or is just overall weak enough that they have virtually no chance against equally skilled opponents.

We disagree with you. The gaming dictionary disagrees with you. Every single fighting game community in the world disagrees with you. This is what we're trying to tell you.

Yes, a game where 9 characters are equally as balanced but where 10 are useless can by some (with insight) be considered more balanced than a game with only 4 equally balanced Top Tiers with 3 being useless if the balanced among the 9 is better than the 4.

But in two games where there are 4 characters who are equally balanced in the exact same ways (as in, they're the exact same as in the other game), if one game has more unviable characters, of course it's less balanced.

Allow me to quote myself: "Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!" (Dr. Zoidberg, Futurama)

This is where your post becomes invalid. Tiers haven't been established yet. You also say in some of your other posts that Marth is the best character, when so far Metaknight and Snake are doing the best in tournaments.

I said that the gap between the tiers has become wider partly because the gap between The Good Ones and The Bad Ones is much greater now, not that the any tiers have been defined yet.

Also, I said that Marth was among one of the best characters in the game. And he's been doing quite well for himself. Recent tournaments are just that, recent tournaments. If few people play as Marth, of course few people are going to win major tournaments as him.

Recently it seems that the popularity/predicted ranking of Ice Climbers, Game and Watch, and ROB has risen significantly, but who are on what tier level changes frequently. Maybe in a few months when our early, solid, tiers are established your argument of "tier chasms" will be true.

Who cares what Random #192 thinks? We care what people with actual insight think. Have you been to the Back Room? Have you seen what people are saying there?

We can't even truly argue about game balance of tiers until real advanced techniques and fighting styles are made (we have threads of "AT DISCOVERY HERE!!!" when things like wavedashing weren't found until a couple years into hardcore playing of melee)

Blah blah blah

Also, you state in your post that you want to see opinions of people who are well known or tournament winners. While this is something that is very easy for someone in a high position like yourself to say, it should go without saying that a well thought out and logical post is better than a simple opinion regardless of who it's coming from.

No I didn't. Lying is very unbecoming. I used the terms "bigshot" and "reliable" and "have played the game extensively", which translate into:
People who've played Smash (and Brawl) a lot and know what game balance is all about, not someone who's new to the game and who probably doesn't even know how to begin judging a game's balance

Now, for a completely biased, and possibly incorrect opinion of my own - don't you find it a bit more believeable for brawl Ganondorf (who has so far been considered one of the worst characters in the game) to beat a brawl Marth (who you claim is the best character), than for, say, Melee Mewtwo to beat Melee Fox? I do at least, but even that opinion doesn't reflect the true nature of the game since metagames for marth and mewtwo have not been established.

No, I don't. Because Ganondorf really, really sucks now, Marth's become better in some cases and Mewtwo vs. Fox wasn't quite that bad a matchup in Melee, really because Mewtwo had some sweet combos on Fox.

 

[Banee]

We disagree with you. The gaming dictionary disagrees with you. Every single fighting game community in the world disagrees with you. This is what we're trying to tell you.

Yes, a game where 9 characters are equally as balanced but where 10 are useless can by some (with insight) be considered more balanced than a game with only 4 equally balanced Top Tiers with 3 being useless if the balanced among the 9 is better than the 4.

But in two games where there are 4 characters who are equally balanced in the exact same ways (as in, they're the exact same as in the other game), if one game has more unviable characters, of course it's less balanced.

Allow me to quote myself: "Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!" (Dr. Zoidberg, Futurama)

First off, I made an argument not stated an opinion. I used logic, which seems lost on so many people.

Now, if I may paraphrase and condense what your saying, your simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm not going to tell you why." Did I get this right? Because you have provided 0 logical retorts to my response. You just keep reiterating that my "opinion" is wrong and never elaborating. I have to ask you to either elaborate or concede the argument because you've made no point.

You have just said that if a game has more un viable characters than another game, despite equal number of viable characters, its less balanced. You offer absolutely no evidence or argument for this point.

 

[zzzzzzzzzz]

who do people act like there will be some specific date when a tier list would be accepted? these things are never final and almost never totally agreed on. top tier is easily defined most times, mid and low tier is almost never agreed on, and it get worse if the game is well balanced. i am not speaking specifically on smash, but in general on tier list and balance in games.

those people saying its to early to discuss tiers and balance, when would be the the best time?

 

[HugS]

Now, for a completely biased, and possibly incorrect opinion of my own - don't you find it a bit more believeable for brawl Ganondorf (who has so far been considered one of the worst characters in the game) to beat a brawl Marth (who you claim is the best character), than for, say, Melee Mewtwo to beat Melee Fox? I do at least, but even that opinion doesn't reflect the true nature of the game since metagames for marth and mewtwo have not been established.

Watch Taj play a fox with Mewtwo.
Come back to me when you're done.

 

[Pink Reaper]

What if its M2K's fox?

 

[Yuna]

First off, I made an argument not stated an opinion. I used logic, which seems lost on so many people.

Now, if I may paraphrase and condense what your saying, your simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong, and I'm not going to tell you why." Did I get this right? Because you have provided 0 logical retorts to my response. You just keep reiterating that my "opinion" is wrong and never elaborating. I have to ask you to either elaborate or concede the argument because you've made no point.

You must be blind if it's escaped you. I (and a few others) have provided arguments on why you're wrong. In fact, I did it in the post you quoted.

You have just said that if a game has more un viable characters than another game, despite equal number of viable characters, its less balanced. You offer absolutely no evidence or argument for this point.

Other than the world's definition of game balance. Obviously, the world is wrong because you say it is.

 

[HugS]

What if its M2K's fox?

M2k is just better than everyone. It has more to do with the player than the character.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I know, im just saying, Taj and M2K are both amazing players, but there's no way Taj's way too good to be bottom tier Mewtwo is going to beat M2K's way too inhuman(Seriously, I think he's a cleverly disguised robot) Fox.

 

[Banee]

You must be blind if it's escaped you. I (and a few others) have provided arguments on why you're wrong. In fact, I did it in the post you quoted.

Okay, i'll break down your "argument" from the last post.

We disagree with you. The gaming dictionary disagrees with you. Every single fighting game community in the world disagrees with you. This is what we're trying to tell you.

This isnt an argument. Its a statement that many people (Not sure who you're referring to, I think I count 3 including you, with 3 supporters of my idea) disagree with me. If your unfamiliar, you can wikipedia consensus as an argument and why its a falacy.

Yes, a game where 9 characters are equally as balanced but where 10 are useless can by some (with insight) be considered more balanced than a game with only 4 equally balanced Top Tiers with 3 being useless if the balanced among the 9 is better than the 4.

So here you're agreeing with me from one perspective, but that isnt the point so it doesnt matter. The point is, this isnt an argument.

But in two games where there are 4 characters who are equally balanced in the exact same ways (as in, they're the exact same as in the other game), if one game has more unviable characters, of course it's less balanced.

This was your best attempt at an argument. You started well with a hypothetical example, however after the example you gave me no supporting facts or reasoning. You simply made the statement "if one game has more unviable characters, of course it's less balanced." You seem to believe this statement is self evident when it is not, thats the whole issue in fact. This is not an argument, it boils down to a claim with no support.

Allow me to quote myself: "Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad!" (Dr. Zoidberg, Futurama)

This is a snarky comment. This is not an argument.

So, where was your argument again?

 

[HugS]

I know, im just saying, Taj and M2K are both amazing players, but there's no way Taj's way too good to be bottom tier Mewtwo is going to beat M2K's way too inhuman(Seriously, I think he's a cleverly disguised robot) Fox.

I know, but that's just a difference of skill. Put up Taj's M2 with Eggz's fox or Chinesah's, and it would put on a show.

Taj did play vs Fast like Tree in his prime as M2, and I believe it was **** close.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I know, but that's just a difference of skill. Put up Taj's M2 with Eggz's fox or Chinesah's, and it would put on a show.

Taj did play vs Fast like Tree in his prime as M2, and I believe it was **** close.

If you love me you'll have a link to a video of that match O.O

 

[Fawriel]

I concur with Pink Reaper.


Also, guys. Please settle down. There's no reason to get your panties in a knot over a silly discussion like this.
A new person is still well capable of using logic, even if their knowledge of the game is limited. Please be civil about telling people when they lack certain facts, it's tiring to read you argue like a bunch of well-educated kids.

 

[Corigames]

Your mom's a well-educated kid.

 

[Fawriel]

That's what she said.

 

[Yuna]

This isnt an argument. Its a statement that many people (Not sure who you're referring to, I think I count 3 including you, with 3 supporters of my idea) disagree with me. If your unfamiliar, you can wikipedia consensus as an argument and why its a falacy.

3 random people vs. 3 people who've been around and played games Competitively for a while and who know what they're talking about when it comes to game balance, etc. I'm not saying I have 3 people on my side in this very thread in recent posts. I'm saying that the majority of said kind of people agree with me.

It's like having a debate about quantum physics. Who are you going to trust more? The 3 random people who just started studying it or the 3 professors with ph.Ds in quantum physics?

This is like the discussion on what a Competitive player is. The gaming community at large has decided on a definition for the term "Competitive player". Some people might disagree on this, but it doesn't mean they're right. We've agreed on a definition of game balance. And according to that definition, game balance is not just about the top echelon of characters (of which there is still a clear line in Brawl, contrary to popular belief). You might not agree with this definition. The 3 people on your side might not.

But again, it's like ph.Ds vs. physics students who started 3 months ago.

So here you're agreeing with me from one perspective, but that isnt the point so it doesnt matter. The point is, this isnt an argument.

The point is that you're still wrong.

This was your best attempt at an argument. You started well with a hypothetical example, however after the example you gave me no supporting facts or reasoning. You simply made the statement "if one game has more unviable characters, of course it's less balanced." You seem to believe this statement is self evident when it is not, thats the whole issue in fact. This is not an argument, it boils down to a claim with no support.

What's your argument? "Un-viable characters should not count because only the best should count when it comes to balance!"... yeah...

This is a snarky comment. This is not an argument.

Snark - a way of life.

So, where was your argument again?

Behind the blind spot in your logic.

 

[Banee]

3 random people vs. 3 people who've been around and played games Competitively for a while and who know what they're talking about when it comes to game balance, etc. I'm not saying I have 3 people on my side in this very thread in recent posts. I'm saying that the majority of said kind of people agree with me.

It's like having a debate about quantum physics. Who are you going to trust more? The 3 random people who just started studying it or the 3 professors with ph.Ds in quantum physics?

This is like the discussion of what a Competitive player is. The gaming community at large has deciding on a definition for the term "Competitive player". Some people might disagree on this, but it doesn't mean they're right. We've agreed on a definition of game balance. And according to that definition, game balance is not just about the top echelon of characters (of which there is still a clear line in Brawl, contrary to popular belief). You might not agree with this definition. The 3 people on your side might not.

But again, it's like ph.Ds vs. physics students who started 3 months ago.


The point is that you're still wrong.


What's your argument? "Un-viable characters should not count because only the best should count when it comes to balance!"... yeah...


Snark - a way of life.


Behind the blind spot in your logic.

Ah, but here's your ultimate flaw: You're assuming because I havent been on this board long I know less of game design than a profession smash player. I assure you I have made more money from video games than the best smash player. Now I freely admit I am far from the best smash player. I'm a complete casual, in fact. This is specifically why I havent commented on brawl or melee's balance. However, to discredit my idea on game balance because you assume I know less than your familiar players is foolish, and again, a fallacy.

And again, you completely dodge the issue without offering any facts. Saying "you're wrong" doesnt make it true, sorry. I have provided the proof of my claim in my previous posts. Feel free to go re-read them if you didnt understand them fully. I will not be retyping them, but they are there.

Sorry, but i've been playing games at a professional level, and far more successfully, than the people who have agreed with you. That doesnt automatically make me right, and i'm not saying it does, i'm just pointing out how much of an assuming *** your being.

I bet it feels good to think you're right all the time because in your mind anyone who disagree's with you is automatically wrong.

I'm done with Yuna, if anyone that knows how to argue and express a point has an issue with my claims, feel free to respond. I am always willing to learn and debate.

 

[Yuna]

Ah, but here's your ultimate flaw: You're assuming because I havent been on this board long I know less of game design than a profession smash player. I assure you I have made more money from video games than the best smash player. Now I freely admit I am far from the best smash player. I'm a complete casual, in fact. This is specifically why I havent commented on brawl or melee's balance. However, to discredit my idea on game balance because you assume I know less than your familiar players is foolish, and again, a fallacy.

It's not about how long you've been around on the boards or if you're actually good at the game. Where in my post did I say that? Reading comprehension seems to be a very rare skill nowadays.

It's about how much you know, your education and insight into matters at hand. That's why is said ph.Ds vs. recent physics students and not "Well known physicists vs. Lesser known ones".

And again, you completely dodge the issue without offering any facts. Saying "you're wrong" doesnt make it true, sorry. I have provided the proof of my claim in my previous posts. Feel free to go re-read them if you didnt understand them fully. I will not be retyping them, but they are there.

You've provided zero proof. Zero. The proof you provided was faulty and illogical.

Sorry, but i've been playing games at a professional level, and far more successfully, than the people who have agreed with you. That doesnt automatically make me right, and i'm not saying it does, i'm just pointing out how much of an assuming *** your being.

What people say in this thread doesn't really matter. The really good people who've been around and have insight into the matter usually don't even come to these boards. The people here are either newbies, casuals, intermediates or one of a handful of people who have knowledge on the matters at hand who come here to clear up the stupidity.

It's like Wikipedia. An article that cites a personal homepage as a source (not that this would happen since the citation would be removed instantly) vs. an article that cites a medical journal. Who cares if X people in this thread agree with you when the Competitive gaming community (and game designers, etc.) at large agrees with me.

If two games are exactly the same, only one game features more useless characters, the second game is less balanced. This is fact. You saying it isn't does not make it so. You have yet to provide any real arguments on why it should be so.

I bet it feels good to think your right all the time because everyone else is automatically wrong for arguing with you.

No, it's feels good to have researched your facts when you debate things so you don't stand out as a complete idiot. Reading comprehension is also a very satisfying skill to utilize.

 

[Banee]

You've provided zero proof. Zero. The proof you provided was faulty and illogical.

And yet you've failed to explain in any coherent terms why that is. Every one of you're posts can be summed up as "i'm right and you're wrong."

As i've pointed out previously when dissecting your comment, you have yet to provide anything that can be remotely construed as an argument to my claims that you say are faulty and illogical.

 

[Yuna]

And yet you've failed to explain in any coherent terms why that is. Every one of you're posts can be summed up as "i'm right and you're wrong."

As i've pointed out previously when dissecting your comment, you have yet to provide anything that can be remotely construed as an argument to my claims that you say are faulty and illogical.

What part of "People who know about these things have defined game balance, you're just a random person" is too Spanish for you to understand?

Why is it so illogical? Gaming balance is based on how each character stacks up against the others. Why would you suddenly randomly ignore characters who become un-viable in tournament play or who are just very far removed from the Top Echelon of characters? Because it works against your argument that Brawl is more balanced than Melee?

Why should we not count everyone in when looking at a game's balance, tell me that? Why should we ignore anyone who's not really close to the Top Echelon?

Repeat these so-called valid arguments, each and every one of them and I'll reply to them. Call me lazy, just humor me.